At 8:30 PM -0700 10/13/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>George Goolde wrote:
>>
>>
>>. . .
>> But as Carl also pointed out in another post, GAR always has the
>> force of explaining what preceded.
>
>Always is a very inclusive word. Does GAR really always have this force?

I'm from Missouri, Clay; can you show me where it DOESN'T have an implicit,
"That's because ..." sense?